The parties have the right to ask for cross-examination in the context of the Anton Piller jurisdiction. Falconer J said: ‘Some inconsistencies may well become apparent between what is said when they respondents are taken by surprise when confronted with the order and what is said on affidavit, but it would be in my view quite wrong if it became the norm for an Anton Piller Order to be followed by applications for cross-examination.’ A court making such an order must be satisfied that ‘there was a reasonable likelihood that the person sought to be cross examined had information which should have been disclosed pursuant to the order for disclosure and which would lead to the fulfilment of the purpose of such an order.’
Judges:
Falconer J
Citations:
[I985] FSR 421
Cited by:
Cited – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of Congo and Another ComC 20-Jul-2006
The claimant sought leave to cross examine an officer of the defendant in connection with his affidavit sworn in search order proceedings. The case had a history of deceit and dishonest oral evidence.
Held: Though such an order would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.259223